John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, let me say from the outset that every Member of this body wants to make sure that law enforcement officials have the tools they need to protect the American people from terrorism. I also know that all of us want to make sure that we protect our civil liberties and freedoms as we fight terrorists anywhere in the world and in this country as well. I support the majority of the 166 provisions of the PATRIOT Act. In fact, in the first original PATRIOT Act, I helped write many of them in a version of the bill that passed the Committee on the Judiciary 36-0, but a bill we never saw after it left the Committee on the Judiciary. It was replaced in the middle of the night in the Committee on Rules. I did it, I wrote the provisions because I believe as technology changes, our laws need to keep up and change as well. I believe our law enforcement officials need to be able to talk with one another and connect the dots to prevent terrorist attacks. In some sense this is not really about the PATRIOT Act, the debate that is going on here, or even most of the 16 provisions scheduled to sunset this year. It is about four areas that are subject to abuse and need greater checks and balances, and I would like to suggest what they are. First, the business records, 215, allows the FBI to obtain any record considered relevant to an investigation. This includes library books, medical records, and bookstore purchases. The provision has been difficult to oversee since targets of FBI investigations under the law are not permitted to tell anybody about it, even their lawyer. The Department of Justice and the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary say that this provision has never been used on libraries and bookstores. However, the American Library Association has reported that more than 200 requests for library records have been made since September 11. Now, concerning national security letters, the second very serious issue here, which allows the FBI to obtain financial, telephone, Internet and other records relevant to any intelligence investigation without judicial approval. Again, this is for any intelligence investigation, which means it does not even have to deal with terrorism, or even a crime. Like section 215, recipients are forever prevented from telling anyone they received a letter under penalty of law. Thank goodness a New York Federal court struck down this provision as unconstitutional. Shame on an administration that keeps using it anyway. Third, under section 213, the government can sneak and peek into your business, your office, your car, your home, anywhere, even if there is no emergency. This means the government can break into your home and search it without telling you. It was not in the bill originally reported by the Committee on the Judiciary and was slipped in by the Department of Justice or the administration when the bill was first written a few years back. This provision has been subject to exceedingly widespread abuse. It has been used more than 240 times, and it has been delayed sometimes for over a year before anybody can be told what happened, that they were broken into, they were burglarized, they had things taken out of their home. Worse yet, only 10 percent of these uses had anything to do with terrorism, which is the whole purpose of the PATRIOT Act. Finally, it is clear to me that we need to have additional sunsets in this legislation. What is wrong with sunsets? That is why we are here, because the bill is being sunsetted in more than a dozen ways. If we have learned anything over the last 4 years, the only thing that makes the administration give us any information on oversight on the use of these new powers was the sunset provision. We have also learned of abuses during our oversight that has led to us making modifications. Given this history, it simply makes no sense to make these provisions permanent or near permanent. And 10 years is not a sunset; 10 years is semi-permanent. The lessons of September 11 and London, and even today in London, are that if we allow law enforcement to do their work free of political interference, give them adequate resources and modern technologies, we can protect our citizens without intruding on our liberties. We all fight terrorism, but we need to fight it the right way consistent with our Constitution and in a manner that serves as a model for the rest of the world. I believe that the committee-passed legislation that is on the floor right now does not meet that test. As such, it does not warrant passage until it is corrected. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for yielding me time. Could I ask the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) or the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), is this not kind of unusual? There have been no hearings and we are combining the death penalty by putting together two substantial terrorist crimes, section 1992 and 1993. Well, maybe I should ask the author of the bill, if he is on the floor, why this has not had committee consideration.

Mr. CONYERS. I thank my colleague from Texas for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just point out that this is another one of the famous half-loaf amendments that we are being peppered with this afternoon. The amendment leaves ``interferes with an investigation'' open, but it does take away ``when it would delay a trial.'' We get half a loaf here again, so I cannot oppose the amendment, because it did make some improvement. After all, what is progress, even if it may be slow? But at the same time, this may be a nonterrorist provision within the PATRIOT Act, because we already have a provision for secret searches for terrorists. So letting this section expire altogether would not interfere with secret searches for terrorists at all. What we found out in our examination, the staff examination, is that 90 percent of the uses of the sneak-and-peak authority have been for nonterrorism cases. It seems to me that this amendment goes along in that same direction.

Mr. CONYERS. Right. Is the author of the amendment here? I was wondering if this was sent over to the chairman of the committee at some earlier point in time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus and a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a former prosecutor and a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a subcommittee ranking member.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), who has headed the Constitution Subcommittee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), I am preparing a list of 10 instances of where there have been abuses that have been reported. Abuses of the USA Patriot Act (Prepared by the House Judiciary Democratic Staff) While some have suggested that no abuses have occurred under the USA PATRIOT Act, the simple truth is that it appears that abuses have indeed occurred. The following are examples: section 215, seizure of records or ``any tangible thing'' Since 9/11, the American Library Association found that libraries have received over 200 formal and informal requests for materials, including 49 requests from federal officers. section 218, coordinating criminal and intelligence investigations Abuse in the Brandon Mayfield case: The FBI used Section 218 to secretly break into his house, download the contents of four computer drives, take DNA evidence and take 355 digital photographs. Though the FBI admits Mr. Mayfield is innocent, they still will not divulge the secret court order to him, or allow him to defend himself in court. It is unclear how the search was for any reason but to find evidence incriminating Mr. Mayfield. section 805, material support for terrorism Section 805 has been found UNCONSTITUTIONAL by three separate courts. The 9th Circuit found the provision prohibiting ``personnel'' and ``training'' was overly vague. The Central California District Court found the provisions prohibiting ``expert advice and assistance'' was overly vague. A New York District Court found the provisions prohibiting ``personnel'' and acting as a ``quasi-employee'' overly vague. In each instance, the courts found COMPLETELY LEGAL ACTIVITIES would violate Section 805. Abuse in Lynne Stewart case: A District Court threw out charges of materials support against Lynne Stewart, holding that the law makes ANY action by a lawyer in support of an alleged foreign terrorist client illegal, including providing legal advice. Abuse in Sami Al-Hussayen case: A federal jury in Idaho acquitted University of Idaho graduate student Al-Hussayen on all charges of providing material support for a terrorist organization by running a website for the Islamic Assembly of North America. Importantly, this group is NOT on the list of foreign terrorist organizations, and the links posted by Al-Hussayen were available on the GOVERNMENT'S own website. section 213, ``sneak and peek'' searches In a July 5, 2005 letter to Rep. Bobby Scott, DOJ said Section 213 had been used 153 times as of 1/31/2005; ONLY EIGHTEEN (11.8%) uses involved terrorism investigations. Thus, ALMOST 90% of ``sneak and peek'' warrants were used in ordinary criminal investigations: 97 warrants were used in drug investigations and 38 were used in other criminal investigations. Abuse of delays: In April 2005, DOJ said 90-day delays are common, and that delays in notification have lasted for as long as 180 days. In May 2003, DOJ said its longest delay was 90 days. Abuse of delays for ``unspecified times'': Delays may be sought for an unspecified duration, including until the end of the investigation. In one such case, the delay lasted 406

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), a former member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, what is new then? We have got the law now, we have the amendment here. Well, let me ask you this. Is the national security letter still unconstitutional under the court ruling?

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from West Virginia.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, the floor manager who is, I think, supporting the amendment, but he gives some very compelling arguments against the amendment. Let me pick up from there. The major problem is that under this amendment the FBI can still compel personal records of anyone if they are relevant to an investigation, even if the person whose records they seek is not suspected of criminal or terrorist activities. Is that correct? May I ask the author of this bill whether or not that is true? Is it not true that the FBI can still compel personal records even if a person is not suspected of any criminal or terrorist activities?

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am glad that Mr. Coble offered language to mitigate concerns over his amendment's impact on tribal sovereignty. As initially drafted, the amendment by Mr. Coble could have had the unintended effect of targeting tribal governments who are legitimately involved in the retailing of tobacco products. With the help of Mr. Cole and other Members, Mr. Coble has modified his amendment and has incorporated language that will go a long way to protecting tribal governments and tribal sovereignty. Specifically, a provision stipulating that enforcement against tribes or in Indian country, as defined in Title 18 Section 1151, will not be authorized by the pending bill has been incorporated. Support for tribal sovereignty is a bi-partisan issue and collectively the Congress will continue to defend that fundamental principal of law. I realize that there are other sections that may need to be fixed as well because there has not been much time to refine the entirety of the Coble provision and that further refinements may be in order once we get to Conference with the Senate on this provision. I understand that the rule of law of enforcement in Indian country will fall to tribal governments and the Federal government will be protected through further amendment and I pledge to work in conference to ensure the rights of tribal governments are fully protected.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in protest of Rules Committee's refusal to make the Sanders library amendment in order. Just last month, this body passed an amendment that would have barred funds from being spent on the controversial 215 orders against libraries and bookstores. It simply would have protected the reading habits of our own citizens from government snooping. It passed by a vote of 238-187. I cannot protest enough that we are not debating and voting on this amendment again. Section 215 allows a secret court to issue secret orders to anyone to turn over anything. It need not even be directed at a suspected terrorist. Mr. Sanders and I introduced an amendment that would have exempted library and bookstore reading records from these secret orders. The FBI still would have been able to get a regular warrant for reading records. However, the administration doesn't even want to have to show any criminal activity before it starts digging into our reading records. It wants a free pass, and I will not willingly give it to them. Consider this: the American Library Association has confirmed that the government, under some authority, has gone to a library, and asked for a list of everyone who checked out a book on Osama bin Laden. Clearly, in the wake of the September 11 attacks, many innocent people are checking out books on Osama bin Laden. And therefore, many innocent people had their right to privacy violated by our own government. And there may be thousands more. We know that nearly 200 libraries have been contacted by local and Federal officers since 9/11. We must demand that they show some wrong doing on behalf of library patrons before they dive into their personal habits. Let me also note that we tried to offer an amendment to increase the safety and security of our Nation's ports, rails, and mass transit systems by providing those segments of the transportation industry with the necessary tools and resources to reduce identified risks and vulnerabilities, but were shut down by the majority. The American people deserve these improvements, but the majority party will not even let us vote on the issue. In light of today's bombing incident in London, it is all the more objectionable that the majority would foreclose critical amendments for the Patriot Act reauthorization on the floor.